Voting now open for the Drobe Awards 2008

The shortlist for this year's Drobe Awards has been drawn up, the voting system dragged out of the attic and we can't wait to see who will win. Log in and vote now to recognise those who have contributed the most to the RISC OS platform this year.

Previous: The leaked ROL licence is the dullest thing you will ever read
Next: Software project management tool updated

Discussion

The "RISC OS eXperience 2008" show link points to our RISCOS.be website (Belgian RISC OS users) and although we were present there as one of the stand-holders, the show was in fact (excellently) organized by the Dutch Big Ben Club. joty on 22/12/08 8:48PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I should've nominated MoreDesk - I never remember riscosopen on 22/12/08 8:58PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

You should win the prize for the best installer at the very least! Its very slick... markee174 on 23/12/08 3:30PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Where are the categories for "the most outrageous claim" and "starting the most pointless argument"? druck on 23/12/08 8:11PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Just because you want to win something helpful on 24/12/08 10:45AM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

druck>As there'd only be one in the running there'd be little point in having a whole category for it would there ? AMS on 23/12/08 11:07PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

It would allow us to show our unanimous derision. druck on 23/12/08 11:24PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Well there *is* that I suppose ! AMS on 23/12/08 11:44PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Well, at least we established neither of you had any good reason to believe Iyonix wasn't covered by ROL's exclusive licence. Merry Christmas! Stoppers on 24/12/08 8:12PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ] Not not not true - error too many negatives. druck on 24/12/08 10:44PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

The statement that I'll have turkey tomorrow is not not true if that's the case. I'd try the ham only that without the dioxins in it it tastes flat... Anyway one and all I hope you have a merry christmas. And no Stoppers ROL don't have the exclusive license on that one either.... AMS on 24/12/08 11:02PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Sorry, I must have missed where you said what your good reason was. Both times. Stoppers on 25/12/08 12:13AM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Lighten up Stoppers, it's the season of good will and all. Merry Christmas to you. AMS on 25/12/08 1:08PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Show me some good will, then. Explain why you believe Iyonix wasn't covered by ROL's exclusive licence. I'd really like to know, because it's pretty clear to me that it was, but I'm open to persuasion. It won't take you a minute. If you like, you could tell me what market the Iyonix was in that you couldn't have sold a RPC to at least some of the potential customers. Stoppers on 26/12/08 12:21AM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Stoppers>As you've already made your mind up there probably isn't any point is there. For me personally I don't care if ROL had or hadn't the right to the market. There was one moment in which things could have been turned around - and that was Iyonix (the only alternative the MD Omega took too long to arrive and was obsoleted by Iyonix anyway). There are some here, possibly you included, pleased that Iyonix has gone (whoopeee). The problem is that that leaves us with *no* complete native hardware/software platform to run on and *no* prospect for any new hardware. The stunning short sightedness of this confounds me. What you and some others are doing is arguing about who has the right to polish the door knobs on the Titanic. Unlike you I have no "religious" belief in either ROL or Castle. In fact I don't care who's right. The one thing I do care is about the *survival* of the platform. You may have read my commentary as simply being supportive of Castle/Iyonix rather than recognising that I was being pragmatic. If ROL and another had produced an OS and Hardware as good as Iyonix *first* I'd have supported them. As it happened Castle and Iyonix arrived first and I supported them/that instead. It was luck of the draw. Once I had evaluated the prospects of both whichever seemed the more likely to succeed I'd support. On the other hand you and others seemed more intent on "winning the argument" where the only possibly outcome was RISC OS being an "emulated toy" run on someone elses operating system. Now that the platform is effectively as dead as the Sinclair Spectrum (another machine that exists in emulation form only) I don't much care in or see much point in debating any of this. However wins the debate all is lost. You can grasp that can't you? AMS on 26/12/08 2:07PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I'll accept that you don't care about ROL's rights, that's probably the first genuine thing you've said. I do not have a "religious" belief in either company. What I do have is evidence (provided by Castle) that Castle didn't have a right to bring Iyonix into the market without ROL. You (and Druck), however, claim the opposite without any such evidence. I'll remind you that you started off saying "If Aaron/ROL had a leg to stand on Iyonix would not have happened", and that Pace (and therefore, later, Castle) "had to right to grant or revoke whatever they wanted". These things are just not true, and do smack of either religious belief or maliciousness. Am I happy about the situation RO has found itself in? Not at all. In fact, I haven't been happy since I found out that ROL had no intention of abstracting the reliance on Acorn hardware out of the OS without someone paying for it first, which was mind-numbingly short sighted. (They wanted to be paid to do the work themselves on a port by port basis, instead of making a generic solution so that multiple hardware vendors could work on their solutions in parallel and at no cost to ROL. Result: no new StrongARM computers.) Am I happy the Iyonix is gone? I don't really care about it. However, ROL's shareholders kept quiet about it for the good of the overall market for six years; that is not the behaviour of people who want the market to fail, that was the behaviour of pragmatic people. If there is no Iyonix 2, whose fault is that? Castle could have worked with ROL and none of this discussion would ever have happened, but they wanted to be the only player in the market and now what? RISC OS is already an emulated toy - ARM processors are not about to catch up in terms of raw power and the price of commodity hardware is continuing to fall. As to me having made up my mind; that's not true. Had you had a reasonable argument, I could have been persuaded, but your assertion seems to be nothing more than "winners" are always right, even if they cheat. Oh, and the A9home is still out there. Stoppers on 26/12/08 6:42PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Stoppers>How did what I wrote (quote) "For me personally I don't care if ROL had or hadn't the right to the market" become what you wrote "you don't care about ROL's rights"? I meant I have no axe to grind regarding ROL's rights, if their rights can be publically verified I'd accept them. Rather than the interpretation you seem to be taking of my words (which seem to suggest I'd ignore their rights which is not the same thing). I note also you seem to be saying that I condone cheating - I think you better re-read what I wrote. But I'll clarify it for you, just in case, I viewed the RO5.xx/Iyonix as a better bet - it was first and more technically complete than the RO4.xx/MD Omega. It was a technical choice. I had no reason then and have no reason now to believe that either ROL or Castle had somehow "cheated". If MD Omega and RO4.xx had been completed first and had hit all it's bullet point features I'd have made a different choice it, however, didn't and the rest is history. AMS on 27/12/08 12:03AM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

It follows from your comment to the other article: "I believe they *had* [the "exclusive right" for desktop use of RISC OS] in 1999". I told you that was their right (with exactly how I knew) in a public forum, you even stated that you believed it, and yet you still argue against it even though you have no evidence to the contrary. Something you're still doing by saying "I had no reason then and have no reason now to believe that either ROL or Castle had somehow "cheated"" - there has been reason enough, you just refused to accept it AND continued to claim the opposite. The Iyonix was a better bet than the Omega (and thanks to ROL's mismanagement, the CATS board based computer didn't even get a look in); no-one is disputing that. Part of the bet, though, seems to be that ROL would go bust quickly, and that didn't work out. Castle shouldn't need people making unsubstatiated and incorrect assertions on websites on their behalf; why do you think they do? Stoppers on 27/12/08 11:16AM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

The only 'argument' worth having is how to get more users/development on RISCOS. ROOL are trying to do this by making their version of RISCOS as open as possible to attract developers and ROL are doing it by making their version as good as possible. That gives us a premium and low end option for users to choose - so both should be applauded and encouraged.... markee174 on 28/12/08 10:53AM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Spot on with the second paragraph. However,at present there is uncertainty about the ownership of RO 5. This is likely to put off developers. ROL should issue ROOL with a license. The offer of a license that needs signing would mean that ROOL would have to take sides to accept it. They need to stay neutral. Publically issuing a license should solve any doubt problems. (ie whoever owns RO 5 or the rights to desktop RISC OS, becomes immaterial for non comercial use.) jess on 2/1/09 10:44AM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Please login before posting a comment. Use the form on the right to do so or create a free account.

+++ Message board +++

Read messages or start a new thread

Search the archives

Today's featured article

It's the Music, Man
It comes from not-so-far away
 14 comments, latest by cynic on 3/2/05 7:59PM. Published: 18 Aug 2004

Random article

Support for 32-bit next-gen RISC OS announced: We give you the view from the Launchpad and what 32bit will mean to you..

 Discuss this. Published: 22 Nov 2000

Login

Useful links